How much more expensive was Argentina vs Scotland? I think that game was poorly attended because it was originally to be played in Christchurch. People who had already bought tickets to the other games may not have bought the tickets to that game as well.
True - I paid NZ$148. It was not cheap. I paid NZ$25 to see Italy vs USA. However, suggesting it was underattended due to the change of venue is not the answer. The match was moved close to 6 months before it happened! I was surrounded by Argentine and Scot´s - not people dressing up as them but actually people from these countries. The prices did drive people away and the same venue had too many other matches. I got to Wellington early afternoon - checked in to my accomodation then went out quickly to catch Fiji vs Samoa at a bar. I continued going from bar to bar (being careful not to drink too much) until it came time to go to the stadium. The bars were not packed with Kiwi´s. Scot´s and Argies were there in the 1000´s though.
I paid over NZ$100 for Italy vs Ireland. I got worse seats - end on. But, it was full. Actually, a bigger crowd despite the venue being smaller than Wellington! Talking about it with friends we concluded that Wellington failed to get behind the tournament as much as other centres. The two Quarter Finals were not sold out.
Argentina vs Scotland was the most thrilling match I have been to in my life. After Parks landed a drop goal I was sure that was it but... then came the try of the World Cup. It was tragic that local fans didn´t get behind the match. Spoiled for choice is certainly how I see it and the lesson is do not give too many matches to one venue.
A bit of common sence would really help with this to be honest, obviously depending on the draw of the pools the powers that be should try to get the 6N nations playing their games as close as possible to encourage bigger crowds.
Eg.
Scotland playing at St James park,
Wales @ the Millenium,
Ireland @ Anfield or Old Trafford,
France @ The Emirates/ Wembley
Italy@ suggestions?????
Being from Birmingham i'll go to a game at the ricoh whoever plays as it's the WC. But a England Game vs a tier 2 team at Old trafford would be a nice touch by the RFU and really help the Game in the North no doubt.
On Another note quite why the RFU have gone with St mary's in Southampton i'll never know as there's no team in the prem or the championship based around there i'd assume the locals have no love for the sport and this venue will just be where the lesser supported games held the tonga v fiji for example. Can't help but think Sandy Park would be a better venue as the game has good support in Cornwall.
Wales cannot play at home, should not be allowed to and probably won´t. At best it will be two matches and one wil be vs the pool´s weakest side.
Basing teams in cities is a fundamnetal flaw that has failed to deliver at previous World Cup´s. Teams, at the most, can play twice at the same venue but never for two consecutive matches unless it is an isolated venue far from others. An example being Perth for WRC 2003. England has no such concerns and therefore, thankfully, matches can be spread well.
Scotland should play a match at St. James Park. But just one, not more. If Scotland were drawn with a SANZAR side and a 6N side I would like Scotland vs Sanzar at St. James Park and Scotland vs 6N at Manchester.
Italy would be good to have its crunch game in London face a SANZAR side in Manchester or Liverpool and play its two other matches at the medium sized venues. i.e Italy vs Canada at Southampton and Italy vs Romania at Coventry.
The Italian matches are what all 6N teams should have. The model should be this. The matches involving the automoatic qulaifyers should all be played at London (Wembley, Emirates and Twickers), Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Leeds, Cardiff (I hope not)
